The first
place I went to soon after arriving to London in 1990 was the Thames. I was
eager to see its dirty waters that caused such sadness to T. S. Eliot and made
him pessimistic about time, time that exhausts the human being and smashes the
value of precious things inside him.

After
few months in this ancient city, I began feeling an alienation, so I moaned to
my friends who had come to London earlier about the misfortunes that had led us
to this city in the footsteps of Eliot, Ezra Pound, Virginia Wolf, D. H.
Lawrence and others who established the characteristics of modern literature in
England and the whole world.

Of
course I make no claim to be counted among those giants, as we are separated by
more than half a century, but I want to follow some marks that their works made
at that time.

Like
thousands of Iraqis, whose passports Saddam’s regime had withdrawn after they
left Iraq, I came to the UK as an asylum
seeker. Despite my abhorrence of political parties and politics in general, my
case was comical in a grim way: I was sentenced to death twice by the Iraqi
regime. The first death penalty was passed against me after signing the
International Manifesto of Halabja after this small village has been raided by
the Iraqi air force using cyanide gas. My second death sentence resulted from
writing some articles condemning the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

Two
death sentences against one person only accentuate both the bloodlust and the
banality of the Saddam regime.

What
amazed me most in London
was the mixture of humanity, which it considered as a multi-culture, whereas it
is simply a chaos of ethnic diversity produced by wars and famines.

No
doubt that the UK
at that time was a safe haven for thousands of unfortunate foreigners like
myself. However, the mistake that British governments have made, Labour
government in particular, which knows that within every caravan of refugees
there are thieves and conman, is applying the same old imperial policy when
harbouring those refugees. Turning a blind eye to the dangerous elements, to
use them later when needed. Thus the British were amazed to discover that the
four suicide bombers who committed the 7/7 atrocities in London were British born. They were British
of Pakistani parentage, supposedly part of the mainstream of the so-called
multicultural society of which New Labour is so proud.

It
seems that the British, famous for their politeness, were blissfully unaware
that the terrorists had no affinity whatsoever with their place of birth, since
they are motivated to kill either by their own accumulated convictions, or are
deceived by others’ ideologies. In the case of London,
which shocked the British who were confident of their leader’s abilities or may
be resigned to whatever their leaders do, the killers were led astray by Muslim
clerics, brought up in Islamic countries but resident in the UK for years.

These
clerics have been accused of promoting terror and violence in their countries
of origin. However, in the UK,
they were able to express their ideology freely, financially supported by local
authorities or other agencies, and were even given the opportunity to appear
regularly in the media to express their views on current events. Some of them
have become media stars, which has made the UK, in the light of 10 Downing Street’s
policy, look like a sheep raising a wolf inside its own home.

I was
among those who are offended seeing these ‘clerics’ in the media promoting
their dangerous ideas. But what can a person like myself, who writes in Arabic
from time to time, do in the face of an English media, watched and read by
millions of British, with the media all over the globe following suit?

Besides,
could the antagonism of a nationalised British citizen like myself attract the
attention of a government known for its aggressive attitude towards dissent
these past few years?

I do
not believe that civilisation could be destroyed by an extreme imported
ideology promoted by small groups, which has been rejected even in their own
societies of origin. However, I do believe, at the age of sixty-four now, that
the main elements on which western civilisation is founded could be seriously
harmed by feebleness, resulting from ill-judgement on the part of society, and
if one of these elements crumbles, the resulting moral imbalance and frustrations
at the individual level would be significant.

The
great principles of individual freedom and human rights have been well
established in the west as a result of experiences and ideological conflicts
spread over four centuries, I cannot see serious danger threatening them if
they were abused by the government or mistakenly by some NGOs while trying to
defend these principles.

In
the UK, successive
governments have used the principles of freedom and human rights in such a
pragmatic way, since Ramsey McDonald’s 1929 government, which supported the
Islamic Fundamentalist group in Egypt
against the intellectuals who were trying to revolutionise their society and
form a new independent government. British governments have continued applying
the same policy to the present day, with the result that all the terrorist
groups in Arab countries, including Al-Qaeda, sprang from the Egyptian
fundamentalist Islamic group’s womb.

In
the midst of the chaos and confusion resulting from the London
attacks, when it was revealed that the terrorists were from Leeds, no-one
asked: Why did Leeds in particular prepare these terrorists to attack London? As I moved to
Leeds six years ago, escaping the hurly burly of London and the aggressive
undercurrent dominating its streets, pavements, buses and trains, I started
seriously thinking of the reasons that have turned Leeds, a city that is
economically growing rapidly, attracting businesses and tourists from all over
the globe and well known for its civilised and tolerant people, into a centre
for producing and exporting terrorists. My search led me to a number of
disturbing conclusions.

The
Pakistanis came to the UK
as labourers, and their numbers have grown – and continue to grow -
exponentially since the law allows them to bring their partners and close
relatives. Arranged and forced marriages to relatives from Pakistan ensure
that this situation will continue. Sudanese and Iraqis were the second biggest
Islamic community to settle in Leeds.

Among
the Arab caravans of students and asylum seekers, there were a number of Iraqi
businessmen who settled in Leeds in the late
1970s and early 80s. It has recently been revealed that they were investing
Saddam’s and his family’s money. They bought an old church and converted it
into a mosque, and started running their business from inside the mosque.

Before
that, there was a mosque in Harehills (Leeds
8) for Pakistani and Arab Muslims in which political discussions and activities
took place. Near that mosque there is an Islamic Bank (Pakistani Bank), Muslims
and Arab come to it from far and wide to transfer money.

Although
the population of Leeds is around three quarters of a million, among them
21.394 Muslims according to the 2001 census, in total there are more than 7
mosques in Leeds as far as I am concerned, four of them located within a half
mile radius in Leeds 6. They are almost half-empty no matter what the religious
occasion. Linked to these mosques and to complete their objectives, there are
four Arabic schools with a curriculum focussed on teaching Arabic language, but
through texts from the Quran and Hadith –prophet Mohamed’s eloquent and Islamic
history reinterpreted by the extremists.

Although
I am not concerned to name individuals or groups, I found that money from Pakistan,
Iraq and the Arabian Gulf have contributed in building these four mosques,
besides the continuous financial support from the local council, charities and
investments whose profits go overseas regularly. Part of this money goes to
unknown individuals in Riyadh, the Saudi
capital, where Bin Laden’s groups get their regular funds, and the other part
goes to the so-called ‘resistance’ groups in Iraq.

I
also found that Leeds is used to accommodate large scale meetings on certain
political and religious occasions, which hundreds of Arabs and Muslims from London and Birmingham are
committed to attend and in turn, Muslims and Arabs from Leeds are committed to
attend similar events in London and Birmingham.

In
the late 1980s a conflict took place between the founders of these groups. Some
of them stood with Saddam, others against him. The conflict also took a
religious form, as some of them rejected all forms of terror while the other
supported it.

Moreover,
in accordance with the policy of multiculturalism, the universities and
colleges in Leeds began providing rooms where
Muslim students could pray and hold their meetings. These students often stood
out from the crowd by wearing traditional Islamic clothes, with long beards for
the men like old pirates we see in the movies, and hijabs (headscarf) for the
women, separating themselves from other students, as if they were monks and
nuns rather than university students in the twenty-first century.

I met
lecturers in Middle Eastern studies departments who were infected by
fundamentalism. I also discovered that they put pressure on the female Muslim
students, via implicit ‘advice’, to wear the Islamic hijab, while an academic
and scientific atmosphere reigns in other departments.

After
Saddam’s regime collapsed in 2003, individuals from Leeds approached the Home
Office seeking permission for Saddam’s wife and his two daughters to live in Leeds as political asylum seekers. At the same time,
genuine Iraqi refugees talk about the massive sums that are transferred regularly
to the so-called Iraqi resistance groups.

I do
not believe it is fair to accuse police and security agencies of not acting
properly towards what some Muslims in Leeds
are doing, as they are simply following orders issued in 10 Downing Street. But who can proof that
part of the money sent from Leeds has not contributed to killing British
solders in Iraq.

As a
result of the expanding terror and destruction in Iraq,
hatred and hostile feelings against the west and the British in particular have
spread among Muslim communities in Leeds, encouraged by voices from London of those who were
leftovers from the left wing, Arab journalists well known for their support for
Saddam Hussein, and MPs relying on Muslim electors. On the top of all these
voices comes ‘Al Jazeera’ satellite TV channel from Qatar, the most strident source of
hatred against the west. ‘Al Jazeera’, in fact is neither concerned with Islam
nor democracy. Members of the Qatar ruling family, well known to the people of
the Arab peninsula as 'King Lear’s' founded it in 1996 mainly to stir up Saudis
against the Saudi regime which harboured Qatar’s former ruler, the father of
the current ruler who toppled his father while he was on a visit abroad in
1995, and refused to hand him back to Qatar.

Digging
deep in the cultural role of the religions in forming people’s feelings, we
find that Islam clearly promotes killing enemies, destroying them and looting
their possessions, describing them as ‘Kafir’ which means ‘unbeliever’ (i.e.
not a Muslim).

It is
difficult, if not impossible for Westerners, especially the British, to
appreciate the influence of the word ‘Kafir’ on the extremist Muslim’s
consciousness. It is a word charged with hostility and a near hysterical desire
to destroy others or exult in their pain. The word ‘Kafir’, repeated in the
Quran hundreds of times and deeply rooted in the extremist Muslim’s
subconscious, gives rise to spite and hatred which has no justification in
reality.

Moreover,
‘Kafir’ is branded on the extremist Muslim’s consciousness and is unaffected by
any friendship or kindness he or she has been shown.

The
problem that secular and moderate Muslims encounter is that the concept of
Islam has remained unchanged since the texts of the Quran were gathered in one
book, and agreed to be the only reference for all Muslims regardless of sect.

Islam,
in its spiritual and physical thought, descends from the Torah and imitates it.
Because these texts were created at different stages, they contradict each
other, so you can find one text that encourages killing while another preaches
tolerance. Many Muslim researchers and writers have discussed this
inconsistency during the past fifteen hundred years, including the most recent
ones like Hamid Abu Zaid, Faraj Fooda (assassinated), Burhan Ghalioon, Mahmood
Saeed Al-Qaamni who, along with many others, is threatened with assassination.
However, the concepts of Islam have never been reformed or modernised, and this
is the main reason behind the obscurantism and dysfunction of Muslim societies.

The
only period when the Arab Muslims established a substantial modern state is
when the Abbasids (750-1209) prohibited the clerics from intervening in
politics and in everyday life.

It
does not seem to occur to nonentities like Bin Laden, Al-Zawahiry or even
Al-Zarqawi that they are contradicting Islam or harming it when they call for
the destruction of America
and Europe by slaughtering innocent people in
trains and buildings.

The
Pakistanis’ new role is complementing the Arabs in promoting extremism among
children. The notable intelligentsia that came to into view after the senseless
and sectarian separation from India have also found it difficult to enlighten
villagers, nomads and those who live in the small towns due to the
counterweight of the clerics.

The
groups appearing on TV with their long beards and traditional robes in Pakistan, London,
Leeds and Birmingham’s
streets are the offspring of those who triggered extremism and religious war in
the 1940s in the Indian subcontinent, and they still raising their children on
extremism against non-Muslims.

I
think that Eliot, like his contemporary Arnold Toynbee, believes that war is
not an important factor in the death of civilizations. The illustrious
historian refers that to what he calls the ‘barbarians’. He means the villagers
who creep into the city and destroy its lifestyle and moral values, while the
genius poet refers to the ugly scenes of the scum that covers the surface of
the Thames to the loss of civil values among
contemporary man.

It is
so sad to hear national and international Human Rights organisations opposing
the new procedures that aim to decelerate the wave of hatred and violence that
has overtaken the UK.
The number of extremists continues to grow, in the name of freedom and
multiculturalism of which we do not see any tangible features other than the
annual Afro-Caribbean carnival and some cultural activities for Sikh and Hindus
on the TV or the theatre. All other ethnicities are either seized by hatred
against others, or having no real culture to show us.